In Dixon case, no arguing with video

June 30, 2009 09:50 pm

— In response to Jim Mowell’s June 17 letter, all anyone has to do is view the video The Herald Bulletin has online. It’s plain to see that Dixon knew very well he had the concealed weapon on his person. Yes, the officers missed it during their search, but that was likely because they knew they were dealing with a city councilman and did not want to “ruffle his feathers.” No excuse, I know, but what’s done is done.
What I liked is when The Herald Bulletin first published the story, Dixon was quoted as saying he was not drunk and that law enforcement had a duty to arrest anybody they thought had been drinking, but he was not drunk! He was so drunk he did not know where he was. By the way, is this not his third arrest on alcohol-related charges? And still not a felony? No, Mr. Mowell, I will not worry if the law is upheld and Dixon is found guilty. Because he is guilty.
Jonathan Willis
Anderson